The Bare XCS2 neoprene is at the top of my list for a new suit, but I've never dove one. Just curious what makes the trilam more comfortable for you overall?
On the surface, the XCS2 is a lot warmer. Nice in cold weather. Miserable when diving the local quarry during the summer.
In the water, the XCS2 is stretchy. So, reaching for valves (for example) means (for me and the way mine fits) fighting against some resistance while I'm doing it. With the trilam, there is no stretch, but the cut is looser, so I don't need the suit to stretch to do the same thing.
Also, in the water, the trilam feels like it squeezes down onto my body better. So, I end up feeling like I have less air moving around inside. It's like being shrink wrapped with normal plastic cling wrap versus being shrink wrapped with, well, thicker rubber. The thin cling wrap presses into the nooks and crannies better and collapses on itself better, getting more air out.
It is clear to me from reading on here that other people feel exactly the opposite, so I don't know what to tell you. I bought my XCS2 first and was diving it for over a year before I got the trilam. I bought the XCS2 in large part because of posts I read here on SB that said that a crushed neoprene would have LESS air moving around inside than a trilam. Maybe it just all comes down to how well the specific suit fits the specific diver. But, I feel like both my suits fit me extremely well.
The only real reason I bought the trilam was not that I had a real problem with the XCS2, per se. It was that I wanted a suit that would be better for taking when I fly, and that would be more comfortable in warm weather. And I found my trilam used, for CHEAP. I used to only wear a dry suit for diving in water too cold for a 7mm wetsuit. I got to where I wanted to dive dry even in warmer water, if I'm diving with double steels and a deco bottle. I was expecting the trilam to be a tradeoff. Convenience when traveling and comfort on the surface versus nicer to dive. As it turns out, I like it better in every respect. It's not as inherently warm as the XCS2, but I can simply wear a bit more undergarment when I need it, so that hasn't been an issue for me (in water down to 37F, so far).
Also, the torso being telescopic makes it a bit more versatile, for me, in my ability to wear no undergarments or thick undergarments. With a non-telescopic torso, if it fits well (not baggy in the crotch) with no undergarments, then thick undergarments will make it feel a bit short in the torso. If it's non-telescopic and fits well with thick undergarments, then it will be a bit saggy in the crotch with no undergarments. The telescopic torso is long enough for any undergarments and the telescopic portion takes up the slack, so it never feels saggy in the crotch. My XCS2 walks a very fine line. It's a LITTLE tight in the upper body with my thickest undergarments, and it's a LITTLE too saggy with no undergarments on. If you want one suit for all conditions, then I think trilam with a telescopic torso is the way to go. If you want a very tough suit that is only for cold water, and you're not planning to fly with it, then I think an XCS2 is a GREAT choice. (and if you want a mint, all-black XCS2 Tech, size XL, mine is for sale
).